Re: RFC: The BTS, "Severity: Fixed", etc. (Was: An idea for the BTS)
Santiago Vila writes:
> > As I see it, the `Status' of a bug-report (I suggest at least: clear,
> > reported, identified, known-workaround, known-fix, fixed) is an issue
> > that is othogonal to the `Severity' (as used for now: wishlist,
> > normal, important, grave, critical) - eg. the fact that a bug was
> > fixed (eg. by a NMR) does not mean it is not important any more.
>
> Hi. I *fully* agree with this.
Great ;)
> I have not read your proposal in detail, but I think that a simple
> three state "closed | fixed but not closed | open" would be enough for
> now.
[I feel my reply to this is of general interest - I forward to the list]
Well, my additional states are mostly aimed at providing users (and
other developpers) documentation about bugs they may suffer from. I
think we should encourage users to report bugs when the hit one, and
it is IMHO an important issue to let them new quickly about related
reports, without forcing them to get through all the thread when not
needed.
--
Yann Dirson <ydirson@mygale.org> | Stop making M$-Bill richer & richer,
isp-email: <ydirson@a2points.com> | support Debian GNU/Linux:
debian-email: <dirson@debian.org> | more powerful, more stable !
http://www.mygale.org/~ydirson/ | Check <http://www.debian.org/>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: